From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpbgbr1.qq.com (smtpbgbr1.qq.com [54.207.19.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B51603254AD; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=54.207.19.206 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765867457; cv=none; b=NetcZTF75Esy09mKKNIkhQfQ0qfF+90En0l8ADInfeTmTQoaeQXVvQkuJI+lWzoPmdvQo3CpAhmohAI+gPZMLqSAE9ULhpfNZHW4e8lX5C74mhygVnyhTB1z2zfuqlWh6zuFA/rBOUNmrW9dri7Ac+AY2bE9fDvMzeek3hL3dgA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765867457; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ril54GOhWBDEb0U64qDski1oPodK8jzqI766xMGddu0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=FsTcP5ZugpRBorfqQxGCu/fv6PnfMbdcdz8H4K159/WjKifj/uqWrYSp4KXrtovJGcZS+FCQQkAmV8W7Xg/wtyHT3x55+ZSQp48uTDYcNsWiGMwYUjk6aM3Cafu8lQ8EL44C7qwT6ZMvpiw1/A7t2QsUJmktWzqX82Slo0CV3rY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=darknavy.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=darknavy.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=darknavy.com header.i=@darknavy.com header.b=r39x+Sj9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=54.207.19.206 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=darknavy.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=darknavy.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=darknavy.com header.i=@darknavy.com header.b="r39x+Sj9" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=darknavy.com; s=litx2311; t=1765867404; bh=eBb/mwvHnHZnIX8S3eE2z2bF9eyAeqDxV/6nbdOcIYs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:MIME-Version; b=r39x+Sj9eFp8+FID6eiOZFuefmzF/4HhOk/tOc+7SlIgKtRdScrAwZscbZyN977x4 +jd+RfmiH3o7oTG1cl80ItH1id7xyT4OJqgldzIeTHqELP0XWIpJ/VmQCbjcV8YHsW 25a7ngVqBFCWhK93NatUpvgjjndA1Kmj3ZVRtCqY= X-QQ-mid: zesmtpgz8t1765867395t949d7b83 X-QQ-Originating-IP: qGU6cjUqXpUBD+ojSRfziOHcDAqVRhOnkDgzWFQmEAU= Received: from localhost.localdomain ( [223.166.168.213]) by bizesmtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:43:13 +0800 (CST) X-QQ-SSF: 0000000000000000000000000000000 X-QQ-GoodBg: 0 X-BIZMAIL-ID: 13400267779485537126 EX-QQ-RecipientCnt: 7 From: Shipei Qu To: jejb@linux.ibm.com Cc: martin.petersen@oracle.com, aradford@gmail.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vr@darknavy.com, qu@darknavy.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: 3w-sas: validate request_id reported by controller Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:43:13 +0800 Message-Id: <20251216064313.69144-1-qu@darknavy.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5 (Apple Git-154) In-Reply-To: <27297f052a89a5e171bad743dd59f39a339ce126.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <27297f052a89a5e171bad743dd59f39a339ce126.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520 Feedback-ID: zesmtpgz:darknavy.com:qybglogicsvrsz:qybglogicsvrsz4b-0 X-QQ-XMAILINFO: OS4uHVcO72ZrKzi/Yg/VVrDPfna6fntVAJHMkmE1rir4yE4YaTrSDYZF W3aNycDo54+p3Z1MYpSJVehp1wMIqo7TcCYV54KtWpu+rW//jAr5RikgQup50AnvUJqktQb zV66tQ/G0V5efAm1I90glB+BioO/SyQ5JviVElrmb86O2F+jC02p9sEDwHTzEhbJ9SEaVnT jP/H5VgJRHv099xc7K/UALdXbfUi1wznSlaenuTrZKgm94JfX+ilr/KnAQgu0Xtp0+7n6VW M5pnxqsM0/kR3I5hvkpBnNAkv2YwKlTnJaR9SNSj7JzTjWjCRhzFtsafX3hUx79ILvu/8tY trnsTpvwvmFKv30J/hUV5gvTOvNLrEPOGHKnyKEX7GoR/BW1BOjIjOZVFcdzHDBNIy0SSbX bS8kAZ/RFFMrJao06pKLLiQesIs6NKAF33d5QOsT+nkewKQDM6O59sDjNviC4Ayu69oQDCX BCYbNJMGaOCm26vcOPF7Xa4oCDHUpmQ3G+kQCIJ7F/ZAUihOinrVeeBej7S8JGcU4qHsCIk 6HxMsvSpG61gC+H9t3t5h5d7vXBrhYV/cD6H6wM6NByyi+oBZQdlAFrIygoH7/ZWKWH20US T7/EQT1bP/P7ZXn6+uSnGQYLTVo06DORCln8uHXER3NUuM+mIuQiNHTo+CmQXgPoL8eSsn+ orh/uV9ZpoMbe75mdDZhzgiD/Gp83Ges8M/SQirNCUBVDa7lVMm01hFCiZ09hVLfUwBAi2/ pP1lzITJ3FDEgozDB+kqUnb1i5EXt+HDcOT9eo59iw5KQwvEQdjFdwcciOofS7JtSQapzct OhQlDrIhHpbksgndVeaYT1sOFXzZBcoG/Bzyd2hxqCs3PsL3P4nWZB0IeLQ4WnHTWTJjnG/ iWuYbxrSB4/tqA87+Z1k9nIoB4y5OUJKFHpZerJsr78PG9t++3hJUMlR8vFE6wMS3zikUT8 vjfU+xbk1PLmNkA192JqecxCauLl16ckX9A84UVU+QjU5qCmOZN0R3tbDgi7ZeTvLkKf2Nx VUL6XW9Q== X-QQ-XMRINFO: Nq+8W0+stu50PRdwbJxPCL0= X-QQ-RECHKSPAM: 0 Hi James, > Realistically the same rationale goes for us as well. Absent the > observation in the field of a problem device, we usually trust the > hardware, so unless you can find an actual device that exhibits the > problem this isn't really a fix for anything. > > If the security@ list is happy that the existing trust model for > Thunderbolt/PCIe would prevent the attachment of malicious devices, > then I think we're also happy to take their word for it. Even if > thunderbolt were a security problem, the fix would likely be in the > trust model not in all possible drivers. Thanks for the feedback. We understand and respect the current trust model (drivers assume trusted hardware), so no objections if you prefer not to take the patch under that model. For context: some confidential-computing / virtualized deployments include a hostile or compromised VMM or passthrough device in the threat model, so bounds checks can reduce crash surface when the device isn't fully trusted. But if that's outside upstream scope here, we're fine either way. Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, Shipei